On 10/30/08 12:24, Sowmini.Varadhan at Sun.COM wrote: > On (10/30/08 12:21), Darren Reed wrote: > >> If we're having ipadm, then we should also have tcpadm and udpadm. >> >> transadm just doesn't fit (besides sounding like a toxic food ingredient.) >> >> > > I prefer "xpadm" myself (lesser typing) but that sounds like the > adm for a trade-marked OS :-) > > However, the idea was to have an administrative interface that was > approximately one per OSI layer, and the motivation was that these > interfaces, at least for the TCP/IP family of protocols, would > operate on a similar set of objects. >
If that is the case then "ipadm" is named incorrectly. netadm/transadm or ipadm/tcpadm/udpadm/... Darren -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/brussels-dev/attachments/20081030/d0be5986/attachment.html>
